The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, April 24, 2015

In his column on the liberal website Elaph.com, Kurdish-Iraqi
writer Mehdi Majid 'Abdallah called on the Palestinians and the Arabs in
general to renounce the terrorism of Hamas and to extend a friendly
hand to Israel. He wrote that, since its founding, Israel has been
facing terrorism labeled as "resistance," and that today it is defending
itself against Hamas, which is firing rockets on its civilian
population. He added that Hamas, rather than Israel, was responsible for
the death of innocent Palestinians, whereas Israel extended medical
treatment to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The following are excerpts from his column:[1]

Mehdi Majid 'Abdallah (image: aafaq.org)

"Ever since its founding in the late 1940s, the young state of Israel
has been facing constant terror labeled as 'resistance.' I do not mean
to say that all Palestinians are terrorists, for some of them love life
and prefer the culture of peace and to live in peace and security
alongside Israel. I do not know if Hamas, when it fires its rockets
randomly into Israeli cities, thinks of the fact that they will hit
women and children who have done nothing wrong other than choose to live
in the land that was stolen from them thousands of years ago and has
now been restored to them. [Today] they wish to build this land, but
Palestinian terrorism constantly sabotages their livelihood, their
development [efforts] and their prosperity. Whether we like it or not,
the land on which the Palestinians live belongs to the Jews, and there
is historic and religious evidence of this, both Islamic and
non-Islamic. I shall not present it here, but the reader is welcome to
search the Internet and find plenty of proof for what I say.

"Today the Palestinians have begun to understand that Hamas is a
serious liability and a terrorist movement. That is why we saw no
significant Palestinian opposition to the international and Arab
decisions to designate Hamas a terror organization. The glamour of
so-called 'resistance' faded after the deeds of its leaders and
perpetrators were exposed, and [now] they no longer convince any
intelligent person.

"Hamas leader Isma'il Haniya is always calling to boycott Israel,
eliminate it and destroy it, and is always urging the Palestinians not
to maintain any ties with it, in any domain. He has even sent thousands
of young Palestinians to die [for this cause]. But when his sister, his
daughter and some other members of his family fell ill, one after the
other, we immediately saw him send them to the best hospitals in Tel
Aviv, where they received treatment before being sent back to Gaza
unharmed. Why [were they sent back unharmed]? If Israel was [really] a
murderer of Palestinian women and children, as the Arab media falsely
maintains, it would have regarded Haniya's relatives as choice prey. If
Israel [really] wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, as the Arabs and
Muslims falsely maintain, why didn't it have Haniya's sister and
daughter killed or raped?

"Instead of [taking] the funds that are given to the Palestinian
people and investing them in the poor and the needy, Hamas and other
Gazan movements rush [to invest them in] the building of secret tunnels
and passages for purposes of terror...

"According to a UN report, in 2008 Israel, which the Palestinians
claim murders innocent children, took in 144,838 Palestinians for
purposes of medical treatment. In 2009 this figure grew by 20%, reaching
172, 863, in 2010 it reached 175,151, in 2011 it grew by 13%, reaching
197,713, and in 2012 it reached 210,469. I wonder if any Arab country
would do the same for Israelis?

"The Palestinian women and children who are killed in the Israeli
army's defensive war against Hamas are not killed deliberately. They are
collateral damage, for any war has innocent victims. Israel knows this
well, as evidenced by the fact that, after every defensive military
operation, it apologizes for the [death of] innocent victims and
compensates their families morally and financially. Were it not for the
reckless actions of Hamas, which constantly fires rockets into extensive
parts of Israel [where] peaceful [people live], there would have been
no innocent victims, because Israel's actions are directed against the
terrorists.

"It is time that the Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians, who are
deceived and drugged by false and baseless slogans, wake up and extend a
friendly hand to Israel, so that peace and security can prevail and
everyone can live in peace. Every decent Palestine should oppose Hamas
and its terrorism against Israel. If the Palestinians want to avoid
being harmed by Israeli fire, they should prevent Hamas from using their
homes, mosques and schools [as bases from which] to launch its
terrorist rockets at Israel."

A generation of students is
growing up learning to tolerate -- and consider normal -- bias,
falsehood, prejudice, and the runaway politicization of teachers and
student thugs permitting only one-sided arguments.

America's President Barack Obama has declared war on Israel. The
animosity between Obama and his administration toward Israel and its
newly re-elected leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been
growing for years; it reached crisis point after Netanyahu's address to
the U.S. Congress and news of his resounding victory in the March
elections.

This does not mean that the United States, as a whole, shares this
animosity or is bent on abandoning a vulnerable and beleaguered
democracy to its host of violent and uncompromising predators. Polls
show it does not.

But wars against Israel are nothing new. In 1947, months before the
country was even declared independent, Arabs launched a war that led
uninterruptedly to a full-scale conflict in 1948. Since then, physical
violence -- wars and individual terrorist attacks -- against the State
of Israel has been a feature of everyday life for Israelis, with Jews as
the principal targets. No legally established, democratic country has
ever been faced with so great a lust for its destruction and so many
assaults on its people. It is singled out by a United Nations dominated
by Muslim states and their allies; and now, bewilderingly, by the
president of the one country on whom Israelis have always depended for
moral and material support.

Of course, not even Obama is likely to wage war directly on Israel by
sending in armed forces, but he is making life easier for Israel's
sworn enemies, notably Iran, to think they can use their monstrous banks
of armaments to launch just such an attack without fearing U.S.
intervention.

As the Middle East collapses all around Israel, as jihadi factions
grow bolder and more barbaric, and as Iran spreads its reach into Yemen,
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, Israel has become
the canary in the West's coal mine.

In addition to that, there is now the subversion of Israel's very
right to exist through "lawfare," (the frivolous or malicious use of the
law for political manipulation); UN Human Rights Commission
distortions, and, in many ways the most chilling: the work of teachers
and students in Western universities to boycott, divest from and
sanction (BDS) Israel.

Followers of Campus Watch or International Academic Friends of Israel, and readers of the essays in The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel (Wayne University Press, 2015) will be only too painfully aware of the decidedly unacademic
raw Jew-hatred, posing as anti-Zionism, that has spread across
university campuses throughout the United States, Europe and the West,
particularly in the UK, Australia, Canada and elsewhere. Hate speech,
disruption of lectures, demonstrations, expulsions and grotesquely
one-sided lectures, papers and books have replaced the free speech, open
debate, and academic neutrality that once characterized all
universities within the Western tradition.

A generation of students is growing up learning to tolerate – and
consider normal -- bias, falsehood and the runaway politicization of
teachers and student thugs permitting only one-sided arguments. Many
members of the faculty, radical Muslim teachers, and student thugs
permit only one-sided arguments. It has become unpleasant, even a risk,
for pro-Israel and Jewish students, such as Daniel Mael at Brandeis
University, to lift their heads above the parapet.

In the UK, anti-Israel agitation has been not as violent but just as
strong as in the US; and the BDS movement has been severe in many
universities. For several years, the Association of University Teachers
(AUT), the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher
Education (NATFHE) and the (later amalgamated) University and College
Union passed boycott resolutions against Israeli academic institutions
and individuals. The dominance of intolerantly "liberal" teachers in
British educational circles has ensured a hindrance to open and
civilized debate within the higher education sector as much as have the
students.

Bias and intolerance have now moved in an even more alarming direction. From the 17th to the 19th of April this year, the Law School at Britain's Southampton University had planned to host a conference
entitled, "International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy,
Responsibility and Exceptionalism." This was not an internal event, nor
was it restricted to academics from the UK. Southampton University is a
founding institution in Britain's Russell Group of elite universities
and regularly appears among the world's top 100 universities. It has
been ranked as fifth in the UK; academics working there include Sir Tim
Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web. Its Law School enjoys a
worldwide reputation as one of the best in Britain. The conference was
intended to be noticed far beyond the shores of the UK.

This global reach was indicated in the list of participants signed up
to deliver papers there. Of those listed to give fifty-three papers
over three days, eleven were Americans, one was from Singapore, two were
from Canada, eight were from Israel, seven were from the West Bank
(Judaea and Samaria), two were from Ireland, one was from Lebanon, one
was from Austria, one was from Australia, and one was from the
Netherlands. With an international roster such as this, you are looking
at a major event that had taken over a year to plan. It was clearly an
attempt to legitimize a gathering of the clan of the academic
anti-Israel fraternity.

The university, after appeals from countless individuals and
organizations, stated that it had cancelled the conference. Its
organizers spent some £35,000 to ask for a judicial appeal in London's
High Court, but on April 14, just days before the conference was due to
start, Judge Alice Robinson refused their appeal
and upheld the decision to close down the event. The university had
argued (rather weakly, it must be said) that fears of violence by
demonstrators and their opponents made it necessary to cancel on the
grounds of security. Legally, this was probably the only option they
had, but it is more than likely that, once serious objections were made
and the real purpose of the conference disclosed, they decided that it
the conference might well stain their reputation. Unsurprisingly, BDS
supporters are already describing the cancellation
as capitulation by the university to the "Israel Lobby." And the lawyer
acting for the conference organizers, Mark McDonald, has already stated that they may now take their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Britain's
Southampton University this month cancelled a conference dedicated to
questioning the legitimacy of Israel, which had attracted Jew-haters and
anti-Zionists, and was described by a prominent member of parliament as
an "anti-Semitic hate-fest".

This will not be the last attempt to mount an anti-Israel conference
in a university, whether in the UK, Europe, or North America. On April
15, the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University (a
notoriously anti-Israel institution) announced an October conference entitled,
"The Gaza Strip: History, Future and New Directions for Research,"
supposedly as a response to Israeli "onslaughts" on the Strip. There was
no mention, of course, of the "onslaught" from Gaza on Israel of the
thousands of rockets that had invited Israel's response.

It seems appropriate, however, to examine the real reasons why the
Southampton conference should never have gone ahead within an academic
context in the first place. To begin with, look closely at the
participants, at the titles of most of the proposed papers, and at the
deeply unbalanced Call for Papers that served to attract Jew-haters and
anti-Zionists, and to repel all but a few supporters of Israel and its
right to exist.

David Collier has done thorough research on the positions held by the participants in the conference. His list is available here.
To simplify matters, 45 of those listed to speak have records of active
involvement in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement; some of
them had already been active in direct anti-Israel work. Four appear to
be neutral. The imbalance is stupendous and makes it hard to believe
this conference is simply an anti-Israel and, for some speakers, an
"anti-Semitic hate-fest" (as the Tory Chief Whip, Michael Gove, described it recently
at London's "We Believe in Israel" conference). Some are leading
figures in the movement to defeat Israel and turn it into a Palestinian
state. The best known of these is Richard Falk,
a professor emeritus at Princeton University and one of the most
notorious and outspoken enemies of Israel today. Falk has described the
9/11 atrocity as a conspiracy by the U.S. government; blamed the Boston
Marathon bombing on the United States, and condemned Israel non-stop
while working for the United Nations as the UN Special Rapporteur for
Palestinian Human Rights.

Others stand out for their much-publicized anti-Israel (and, frankly, anti-Semitic) views. Who has not heard of Ilan Pappé,
an Israeli who now holds a professorship in Arabic and Islamic Studies
at Exeter University, but who has been described as "one of the world's
sloppiest historians". His book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, has been widely criticized
as a biased and inaccurate work that squeezes data to fit the author's
narrative, rather than using it objectively to question existing
assumptions. His hatred for his own country motivates everything he
writes about it.

Dr. Ghada Karmi from the
Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies in the University of Essex is a
Palestinian medical doctor, an activist for the Palestinian cause, and a
serial hater of Israel who has called for the destruction of the Jewish
state. She has written
thus about the country: "...Israel, from its inception in 1948, has
been given the most wonderful opportunity to behave itself, and it
clearly has not done so. It's flouted every single law, it's behaved
outrageously, it's made a travesty of international and humanitarian
law. On what basis should this state continue to be a member of the
United Nations?" Apart from refusing to look at any combative behavior
from Palestinians, or the many refusals by Palestinians to reject
Israel's offer a Palestinian state, since when is a medical doctor an
authority on international law?

One should look not just at the identities of the participants, but
also at the titles of many of the papers they were to present. Here are a
few. Do not forget to notice the strangled pseudo-academic language in
which some are dressed.

These examples should be enough to identify the extraordinary bias
inherent in the conference. The language is typical, not of balanced
academic enquiry but of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel and BDS propaganda.
The university's original refusal to respond to calls to cancel, or
move the conference to a more neutral venue, fell painfully short of any
recognition of how damaging such a farcical event would have been (and
actually has been). The administration ignored arguments that lacked
bias, and argued that the conference must be allowed to take place based
on considerations of free speech. And this is the argument that the
conference's supporters have been using ever since, even more since the
ban. But that is also false. Most of those who have appealed to the
administration have asked, not for an outright ban -- which would indeed
go against the principles of free speech -- but for relocation, which
is quite different.

It is worth saying in passing that the Call for Papers is, in itself,
a very unacademic document. Rather than analyse it in any detail, let
me cite just one thing. In just three pages, the Call refers no fewer
than seven times to an entity they term "historic Palestine". But the
term is meaningless. There is certainly no legal definition of what is
meant by "historic Palestine." The region that covers today's West Bank,
Israel, Gaza, and Jordan was for centuries the southern half of the
Ottoman province of Syria. In 1920, the League of Nations established a
British Mandate for Palestine, and in 1922 approved a separate British
administration for Transjordan. Between 1923, when the Mandate came into
effect, and 1948, when the British withdrew, there was a territory
known as Palestine, in which everyone – Christian, Jew and Arab -- was
listed on his passport as Palestinian. Is this the "historic Palestine"
to which the Call refers? Or does this include the Mandate territory of
Transjordan, as the British Colonial Office suggested in 1921? Or is it a
fictitious Palestine stretching back to ancient times, as the term is used by the Palestinians and their supporters themselves?

To leave this point so poorly defined makes it hard for a historian
such as myself, or a legal scholar, to advance any arguments that might
relate to the identity of "historic" Palestine, a name invented in the
year 70 AD by the Roman Emperor Hadrian. This alone exposes the
conference to a charge of academic dishonesty.

UK Lawyers for Israel, a
collective of British lawyers who volunteer to use their legal skills to
defend and advocate for Israel, took up the matter of the conference
with the university, using arguments based on the Call for Papers. Its
secretary and treasurer, David Lewis, wrote a long letter to the Vice
Chancellor, in which he noted, among other things that:

It is clear from even the most cursory reading of the
Call for Papers that it has been written in a way that could almost have
been designed, and probably was designed, to deter supporters of
Israel from presenting papers at the conference. In fact we find it
mystifying that this inherent bias should have escaped the University
when it approved the conference. And if the University gave its approval
before even seeing the Call for Papers, then it certainly should not
have done so. ...Analysis of the Call for Papers is difficult because large chunks of
it are almost incomprehensible. But it clearly states as
incontrovertible facts -- most of which are perfectly controvertible --
that the State of Israel depended for its "initial existence" on a
"unilateral" declaration of independence; that Arabs were expelled in
1947-49; that the Jewish nature of the state has profoundly
affected the lives of Israeli Arabs (described as "non-Jewish Arabs who
were allowed to stay"); that Jewish nationality bestows vital privileges
("constitutionally entrenched, privileged citizenship to Jews"); that
there are two layers of Israeli citizenship; that there is an inherent
differential between Jews and non-Jews; that Israeli settlements are
illegal; that there is or was "apartheid colonisation" of the West Bank,
east Jerusalem and Gaza; that there are "constitutional challenges of
equal citizenship;" and that Israel inflicts "structured suffering" on
the "non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs."The three main "pillar-themes" which the conference is intended to
link repeat some of these statements. They further state or assume:
that:~ There is such a thing or place as "Historic Palestine" and that Israel exists in that place;~ That Israel has an "inbuilt non-egalitarian basis" and that the
State of Israel is an unjust regime; and (to provide a little variety)~ That the United States and Australia were established as a consequence [sic] of "extreme violence towards indigenous populations."

One letter sent to this author and cited here with permission, said:

We have to hope... that the academic and legal arguments
were the true factors that swayed the university authorities. It is a
pity they have not admitted this openly. They have used a face-saving
argument rather than confess that the conference was ill-conceived from
the beginning and that they had been careless to approve it....

A precedent has been set. Israel haters who try to use the mask of
academic enquiry to cover up an extreme political position must accept
that the cancellation of the Southampton conference has sent out a
message to universities everywhere. Ilan Pappé, Oren Ben Dor, Richard
Falk, Ghadi Karmi and hundreds of other academic anti-Israel fanatics
will not stop their efforts as a result. No doubt, they will intensify
them. But the writing is on the wall: keep your politics out of the
groves of academe.

Dr. Denis MacEoin taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at
a British university, has written numerous books, articles, and major
encyclopedia entries in his field. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow
at the Gatestone Institute.

"I’m concerned that by 20, they actually have a nuclear arsenal,"
Hecker said. "The more they believe they have a fully functional nuclear
arsenal and deterrent, the more difficult it’s going to be to walk them
back from that."

Chinese nuclear experts reportedly warned the U.S. earlier this
year that North Korea's nuclear arsenal is larger than previously
estimated, creating a heightened security threat to the U.S. and its
East Asian allies.

The Wall Street Journal
reported late Wednesday that by Beijing's estimate, North Korea may
already have manufactured 20 nuclear warheads and is capable of
producing enough weapons-grade uranium to double that amount by next
year. U.S. experts have previously estimated that North Korea has
between 10 and 16 nuclear weapons.

The Chinese estimates were presented to U.S. nuclear specialists at a
closed-door meeting at the China Institute of International Studies in
Beijing this past February. The Journal reported that Chinese military
representatives and experts on the North's nuclear program were at the
meeting.

Siegfried Hecker, a Stanford University professor and former head of
the Los Alamos National Laboratory who attended the February meeting,
told the Journal that estimates about North Korea's nuclear program
involved a sizable amount of guesswork. He estimated that North Korea
currently could have no more than 12 weapons, and as many as 20 in 2016.

"I’m concerned that by 20, they actually have a nuclear arsenal,"
Hecker said. "The more they believe they have a fully functional nuclear
arsenal and deterrent, the more difficult it’s going to be to walk them
back from that."

Washington has not had high-level talks with Pyongyang since 2012,
when North Korea conducted a banned nuclear missile test. In the
intervening time, the U.S. has relied on China to use its economic
leverage to put pressure on the impoverished nation's missile program
while the Obama administration works toward a nuclear deal with Iran.

However, the Journal reports that relations between China and North
Korea have deteriorated since the death of dictator Kim Jong Il in 2011
and the ascension of Xi Jinping to China's leadership the following
year.

The Journal report comes a day after the U.S. envoy to the
long-stalled six-nation talks said that North Korea should learn from
the emerging nuclear deal with Iran that Washington is willing to engage
its adversaries if it has a "credible" negotiating partner.

"The entire international community is looking for this type of
policy shift in Pyongyang, and that policy shift would be positively
responded to," Sydney Seiler told a Washington think tank Tuesday.

But Seiler said there was no sign in two years that Pyongyang is
willing to denuclearize, adding that the country would need to halt its
nuclear program and missile launches while any talks are underway.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. FoxNews.comSource: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/23/china-reportedly-issues-new-warning-over-north-korean-nuclear-production/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

President Obama talks about tumult in the world in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But I always tell people we have to maintain some perspective on this. The Middle East and North Africa are going through changes that we haven't seen in our generation. I think the Islamic world is going through a process where they have to isolate and push out the kind of extremism that we've seen expressed by ISIL. And that's a generational project.What our job is in the meantime is to make sure that we are protecting Americans, we're protecting our interests, that we're maintaining things like freedom of navigation and that we're partnering with the best elements of those communities in order to be successful.It’s going to take some time but I remind people that you know, there actually is probably less war and less violence around the world today than there might have been 30-40 years ago. It doesn’t make it any less painful. But things can get better. We just have to be vigilant and we have to have strong partners.

In the wake of reports of pay-to-play donations made to the foundation
from rogue nations and Iranian sanction busters, Reuters has investigated the disclosures made by the foundation for years and found them wanting.

Clinton rules mean they feel entitled to …well…everything.

Now
that Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy, even the mainstream
media has started to raise questions regarding the Clinton Foundation.
In the wake of reports of pay-to-play donations made to the foundation
from rogue nations and Iranian sanction busters, Reuters has investigated the disclosures made by the foundation for years and found them wanting.

From Jonathan Allen:

Hillary
Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax
returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported
donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton
Foundation returns in case of other errors.The
foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in
recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who
is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to
undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims "absurd
conspiracy theories."The
charities' errors generally take the form of under-reporting or
over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign
governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government
donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to
Reuters.The
errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form
990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the
Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. A charity
must show copies of the forms to anyone who wants to see them to
understand how the charity raises and spends money. (snip)For
three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported
to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S.
governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in
foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.Those
entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign
governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the
foundation's work on climate change and economic development through
this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the
foundation's annually updated donor list, along with broad indications
of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.

So
the foundation was reasonably transparent until 2010 and then went
“dark” when it came to donations from foreign governments. These types
of donations have become controversial since they include donations from
governments run by dictators and human rights violators -- including
regimes that oppress women, gays and minorities. They also include
donations from governments that are unfriendly to America -- but,
apparently, friendly to the Clintons.

The
fact that the disclosures stopped in 2010 suggests the foundation
changed its policies reporting tax returns as Hillary Clinton approached
the “start date” of announcing her campaign fro presidency.

The
foundation has always been a way to enrich the Clintons and as a way to
park and pay for staffers for the unofficial Hillary for President
campaign. So, in essence, foreigners were funding a de facto Hillary
campaign effort.

The joint statement by Iran and the superpowers following the
round of nuclear talks in Lausanne, Switzerland on April 3, 2015 sparked
widespread reactions in the Arab press, including in political
cartoons. The vast majority of the cartoons expressed anger and
disappointment with the statement and the nuclear horizons it opened to
Iran, as well as fear of the consequences it would have for the power
balance between Iran and Arab states, and of Iran's intentions and
actions. The cartoons also express harsh criticism of President Obama
for his Middle East policy and for getting close to the Iranian regime.

Anger At The Obama Administration For Granting Nukes To Iran, And At The U.S. For Getting Close To Iran

"U.S., Iran Getting close: The Great Satan has become the Great Friend" (Al-Madina, Saudi Arabia, April 7, 2015)

Thankfully, we are finding
that Jews are discarding lifelong ideological motivations at the polls
when confronted with politicians who threaten the survival of their
people. American Jews are finally foregoing their dedication to
abortion rights and reprioritizing their voting issues as they watch the
Democrats move away from support of Israel and our country’s national
security.

Political analysts have been talking quite a bit about a new Gallup poll
reflecting declining support of Obama among American Jews. While 54%
of American Jews still support Obama, that number has decreased from 77%
in 2009 and 65% in 2013, falling to an all-time low of 50% in March.
Gallup views the implications of this as follows:

American Jews are more than twice as likely to identify
as Democrats than as Republicans, and this partisan skew is reflected
in Obama's job approval ratings. Jews continue to approve of the job
Obama is doing at a higher level than the national average, although the
evidence suggests that this advantage among Jews is narrowing. How much
further this gap may shrink in the months ahead remains to be seen, and
will depend in part on the future of the relationship between Obama and
Israeli leadership. This in turn will reflect the status of the pending
agreement with Iran that would restrict that country's nuclear activity
in return for a further loosening of economic sanctions. Other
administration actions relating to Israel, including support for a
possible two-state solution to the Palestinian situation, could also
affect Jewish attitudes toward the president going forward.

While
it appears that Obama’s anti-Israel policies may finally be taking
their toll as American Jews slowly shake off the effects of the
Kool-Aid, the real question is whether that toll will lead to this
demographic voting for Republican candidates who understand the moral
imperative of unconditional support for Israel and her relationship with
the United States.

There
appears to be some hope in this regard. Two recent fundraisers in New
York City perhaps represent a growing trend due to Obama’s divisive
politics and partisan gamesmanship over Israel. Last week, a bipartisan
group of Jewish business leaders attended a fundraiser
for Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) who serves as the chairman of the U.S.
Senate Homeland Security Committee. Hosted by Manhattan real estate
developer and hotelier Ian Reisner, the fundraiser attracted both
Republicans and Democrats concerned about the long-term implications of
Obama’s domestic and foreign policy failures.

Reisner,
who has supported Jewish causes since his first trip to Israel in 2000,
explained, “We are not too far from history to be wary of politicians
who make bad decisions that threaten our lives. The deal with Iran
concerns me. Anti-Semitic murder in Paris and Copenhagen concerns me.
Bringing Senator Johnson to New York to discuss foreign policy and
security will help educate my close friends about these very real
issues.”

Earlier this week, the Endowment for Middle East Truth,
a non-partisan Washington-based think-tank unapologetically pro-America
and pro-Israel, hosted a luncheon for Representative Trent Franks
(R-Ariz.) that was also attended by both Republican and Democratic Jews.
Calling Israel a “profound miracle” and recognizing that it is “at the
fulcrum of the human universe,” the congressman spoke at length about
his support for Israel and his concern for her safety as well as the
national security of the United States, which he understood as being
integrally tied to Israel’s survival. “I believe that Israel helps
America more than America helps Israel. I believe when America steps
away from Israel, we’re hurting America profoundly.”

When
asked whether Obama has successfully turned Israel into a partisan
issue, Rep. Franks noted that “Republicans are by and large pro-Israel.
The Democrat party is starting to fall off in a bad direction…it
frightens me.” He added, “If it becomes a partisan issue, that becomes
very dangerous.”

Like
Reisner, I have attempted to educate American Jews about the
anti-Israel positions of the Democratic Party. Perhaps this uphill
battle is beginning to have an incremental impact on Jewish voters. A
liberal Jewish friend who celebrated Obama’s 2008 win with champagne
voted for Romney in 2012. He explained how difficult that was for him,
since he had never before voted for a Republican and had been
emotionally invested in Obama’s success. Thankfully, we are finding
that Jews are discarding lifelong ideological motivations at the polls
when confronted with politicians who threaten the survival of their
people. American Jews are finally foregoing their dedication to
abortion rights and reprioritizing their voting issues as they watch the
Democrats move away from support of Israel and our country’s national
security.

Jeffrey
Wiesenfeld, a prominent New York businessman, Republican, and staunch
Israel supporter, recently sent out an appeal asking for individuals to
donate to the legal defense fund of Democrat Senator Robert Menendez.
Menendez was targeted by Obama’s Justice Department at the exact time
that he was pursuing legislation that would stem Iran’s ability to
acquire nuclear weapons – something that is at odds with Obama’s desire
to allow the Islamic Republic to in fact do just that. Wiesenfeld
stated:

[L]ife
has very few genuine coincidences. The idea that a man like Senator
Menendez, who has a liquid net worth of under $100,000 and lives in a
house valued at less than $500,000 is targeted just one week after
defending our ancestral homeland - Israel - from dangerous and foolish
Iran policies of the president is an abuse of our justice system.

While
Republicans have no issue crossing the party line in order to support
politicians who defend Israel, Democrats have been reluctant to do so.
Even the fiasco at the Democratic National Convention in 2012, at which
the delegates booed the inclusion of a unified Jerusalem in their party
platform, did not scare the vast majority of American Jews away from
voting for Obama and his anti-Israel agenda. EMET’s founder and
president, Sarah Stern, observed:

At
this point, Jews who do have some sense of Jewish history, Jewish
identity and Jewish consciousness are beginning to wake up and smell the
hummus. They are realizing that although there are some Democrats who
still care about Israel’s survival, they are the exception to the rule.
The vast majority of Republicans understand that there is a distinction
between a fellow democracy with a respect for human rights and the rule
of law and the vast majority of its Arab neighbors, while the Democratic
Party has mostly been high-jacked by the extreme left. One would hope
that now that Obama has so clearly thrown Israel under the bus, more
Jews have finally begun to wake up.

Perhaps hearing an Iranian military chief announce
(in the midst of Obama granting concession after concession in order to
reach a deal that would allow Iran to go nuclear in the coming years)
that “erasing Israel off the map” is “non-negotiable” has jarred some of
these Jewish Democrats into an awakening of sorts. But the question
remains whether these same Jewish Democrats who are beginning to support
Republican congresspersons will vote for the 2016 presidential
candidate who most supports Israel and strong American national
security. That will not be Hillary Clinton or any of the other current
possible Democrat candidates.

There is a scene in the movie Woman in Gold,
currently in theaters, in which two Austrian Jewish brothers discuss
leaving just prior to the Nazi invasion. One brother explains that it
is time to go, while the other puts his head in the sand, believing that
the imminent evil will not arrive in his beautiful and safe homeland.
American Jews are at a crossroads. They can support Democrats and
remain members of the National Jewish Democratic Council, the Jewish
group that recently denounced
Senator Marco Rubio for supporting Israel. Or they can give up their
ideological blinders, reassess their values – both as Jews and Americans
– and vote for the political party home to Israel’s staunchest
supporters.

Republicans
have laid out the welcome mat and will receive American Jews with open
arms, just as Israel will provide a home for Jews when the world
threatens their survival. The choice is stark for those who understand
just how dire a situation the Obama administration has created for
Israel and the Jewish people. Thankfully, American Jews have begun to
take their heads out of the sand and are opting for survival by moving
to the right side of the aisle – both literally and figuratively.

i I serve on the board and am of the New York chapter president of EMET.

When asked to name the world's
most violent religion, 45% of Turks cited Christianity and 41% cited
Judaism, with only 2% saying it was Islam.So there is no racism in turkey. Nice. But Google will produce 12.2 million results if one types in "Turkey" and "racism.""Unfortunately, Turkish Jews, who have been considered as having
organic ties to Israel, are labeled as foreigners. Thus, they are
subject to hate speech and threats almost on a daily basis whenever
there is a crisis between Israel and Palestine." — Selin Nasi,
journalist, Salom."We celebrate the 100th anniversary of our country being cleansed of
[Christian] Armenians." — Banners in several cities of Turkey
"celebrating" the Armenian genocide in Turkey, February 2015.

Ostensibly, it was a merry event. A week before Passover, hundreds of
Turkish Jews from Istanbul gathered in the western city of Edirne for
the reopening of the Great Synagogue, which had closed its doors in 1969
and had remained a ruin since then, until it was recently restored.

In the days after the high-profile ceremony, the Great Synagogue would go back to its quieter days, as there are no longer Jews in Edirne, and only 17,000 in the whole of Turkey.

Turkey's notoriously anti-Semitic and Islamist government did its
best to entertain the congregation by sending two bigwigs to the
ceremony. One of them, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, made a speech
that, otherwise, could have caused bursts of laughter at the synagogue.
"Thank God," he said, "There is no anti-Semitism in Turkey." His next
remarks showed even darker humor. He said: "There is no racism in
Turkey; it has never found a base for its roots. When we look at Europe
and other countries we see how far behind us they are, and we feel
really sorry."

Turkish
Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc speaks at the reopening of the Great
Synagogue Edirne, where he declared, "There is no anti-Semitism in
Turkey." Many so wished to believe him.

The second official guest at the ceremony, Governor Dursun Sahin, is no stranger to readers of this journal. Last November, Sahin threatened to forbid post-restoration prayers at the Great Synagogue and turn it, instead, into a museum.

He said he would not allow prayers at the synagogue because Israeli
security forces had attacked the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Then he
admitted his "huge hatred:"

"While those bandits [Israeli security forces] blow winds
of war inside al-Aqsa and slay Muslims, we build their synagogues. I
say this with a huge hatred inside me. We clean their [Jewish]
graveyards, send their projects to boards. But the synagogue here will
be registered only as a museum, and there will be no exhibitions inside
it."

Selin Nasi, a journalist from Salom, a Jewish newspaper in Istanbul, who covered the reopening, wrote that:
"Unfortunately, Turkish Jews, who have been considered as having
organic ties to Israel, are labeled as foreigners. Thus, they are
subject to hate speech and threats almost on a daily basis whenever
there is a crisis between Israel and Palestine ... The crowds that
filled the synagogue genuinely wanted to believe in Arinc."

How could they? Only a few months ago, a schoolteacher was caught having hung a signpost at the gate of the Neve Salom synagogue in Istanbul that read: "Building to be destroyed." The man was not prosecuted.

So, there is no racism in Turkey. Nice. But Google will produce 12.2
million results if one types "Turkey" and "racism." Wikipedia has a rich
text on "Racism in Turkey," with facts, figures and a couple of photos.
One photo, for instance, shows the slogan "Long Live Racist Turkey"
spray-painted by unidentified people on the walls of an Armenian church
in Istanbul. Another reads, "You Are Either a Turk, or a Bastard," near
the wall of another Armenian church in Istanbul. In February, banners
"celebrating" the Armenian genocide were spotted in several cities
throughout Turkey. They declared: "We celebrate the 100th anniversary of
our country being cleansed of [Christian] Armenians. We are proud of
our glorious ancestors."

A 2004 dispatch
penned by an official from the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, leaked by
WikiLeaks, observed that a campaign against a Turkish Armenian
journalist (who would be murdered in 2007) "exposed an ugly streak of
racism in Turkish society."

Just last August, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (then Prime Minister), in a televised interview on NTV news network, clearly remarked
that being Armenian is "uglier" than even being Georgian. He said: "You
wouldn't believe the things they have said about me. They have said I
am Georgian... they have said even uglier things -- they have called me
Armenian."

There is credible research, too. In 2011, the Pew Global Attitudes and Trends survey
found that only 6% of Turks had a favorable opinion of Christians, and
4% of them had favorable opinion of Jews. A few years earlier, in 2006,
the numbers had been 16% and 15%, respectively.

The Pew survey also found that 72% of Turks viewed Americans as
hostile, and 70% of them viewed Europeans as hostile. When asked to name
the world's most violent religion, 45% of Turks cited Christianity and
41% cited Judaism, with only 2% saying it was Islam. Not surprisingly,
65% of Turks said the Westerners were "immoral."

Deputy Prime Minister Arinc may enjoy his time in his make-believe
world where "there is no racism" and "we are sorry for the Europeans."
But facts are facts. And they often ridicule politicians who speak
claptrap.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, a coalition of groups linked to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, defended Turkey ahead of Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day on Friday (April 24).

The Virginia-based Dar al-Hijrah
mosque is going a step further and promoting a rally on that day to
thank the Turkish government for its support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The coalition published a statement
on Monday, April 20, opposing any recognition of the genocide of
Armenian Christians in 1915 by the Ottoman Turks. The USCMO claims that
there hasn't been a "proper investigation of these events by independent
historians" and that the holiday risks alienating the Islamist
government of Turkey.

Additional Council members include the Mosque Foundation, Baitul Maal, the Islamic Center of Wheaton, United Muslim Relief and the American Muslim Alliance.

CAIR is recognized by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity with Hamas links. The United Arab Emirates banned CAIR and MAS as terrorist groups last year. ICNA teaches subversion and has a war criminal as one of its leaders. The Daily Beastcaught
AMP condemning the U.S. government's outlawing of aid to "so-called
terrorist organizations" and endorsing violence against Israel.

One of the leaders of USCMO, Mazen Mokhtar, was jailed on charges related to tax fraud, but the indictment laid out his connections to terrorism. He has declared support for Hamas and suicide bombings and ran a website that helped fundraise for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

When an activist group named the United West approached Mokhtar
on Capitol Hill during National Muslim Advocacy Day, he was asked about
whether the Muslim Brotherhood exists in America. Moktar responded by
repeatedly talking about how nice the weather was. Hussam Ayloush of
CAIR responded similarly and said he did not know if the Brotherhood exists in America.

The USCMO statement praises Turkey as a
member of NATO that "has taken on a unique regional and global
leadership role in ensuring peace and prosperity for all."

Dar al-Hijrah, a large mosque with links to the Brotherhood and Hamas,
sent a flyer to its membership promoting a rally on Armenian Genocide
Remembrance Day to thank the Turkish government for its "unwavering
support of the oppressed people of the Middle East and around the world
in their quest for 'freedom and democracy.'"

The Islamist government of Turkey hosts a Hamas terror network and is an unabashed supporter
of the Muslim Brotherhood. A "charity" banned as a terrorist front by
Germany, Israel and the Netherlands continues to operate in Istanbul and
has close ties to President Erdogan and his political party even though it has recruited human shields for Hamas.

The Turkish government is embroiled in a scandal due to its cover-up of its covert aid to Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria named Jabhat al-Nusra. In December, two dozen congressmen asked the Treasury Department to begin sanctioning Turkey for its sponsorship of terrorism.

Far from promoting moderation, the neo-Ottoman Islamism
instilled by the Turkish government has resulted in skyrocketing
anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and support for terrorism. Al-Qaeda's
Syrian wing is the most popular
Syrian rebel force in Turkey, with 40% favoring its victory. Another
Islamist rebel group, the Islamic Front, comes in second with 24%.

That is the Islamist government that the USCMO and Dar al-Hijrah is so fond of.

The rally promoted by Dar al-Hijrah
echoes the language that the Turkish government uses to characterize its
support of the Brotherhood and Hamas. When President Erdogan, defends the Brotherhood in Egypt, even as it declares jihad, he says he is standing up for "freedom" and "democracy."

Islamists almost always use such
appealing terminology while advancing their less appealing agenda. The
Brotherhood's political wing in Egypt, for example, went by the name of
the Freedom and Justice Party instead of its own name.

The flyer distributed by Dar al-Hijrah
lists a website: LetHistoryDecide.org. The website is dedicated to
denying that the Ottoman Turk massacre of Armenian Christians qualifies
as genocide. That is the purpose of the walk.

Dar
al-Hijrah was apparently uncomfortable with directly stating the
purpose of the event. Readers are led to believe that the event is just
about thanking Turkey for supporting freedom. Unmentioned is that the
event's purpose is to push back against Armenian Genocide Remembrance
Day and to express appreciation for Turkey's support for the Brotherhood
and Hamas.

On Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day,
millions of Christians and non-Christians who care for human rights will
reflect upon the innocent lives lost at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.
These powerful Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups will spend their day
differently. They will be busy downplaying the atrocity and praising
Turkey for supporting the Islamist ideology that perpetrated it.

Space and
the “cyber warrior” begin to “threaten” that privileged status of the
IAF, and this fact could have a far-reaching effect on the offensive
operational capabilities of the most important tactical and strategic
offensive arm of the State of Israel. It is essential that we consider
this issue, and the sooner – the better.

In
his lecture at the 10th Ilan Ramon International Space Conference last
month, Maj. Gen. David J. Buck, Vice Commander of USAF Space Command,
stressed that the three primary missions of Space Command are achieving
victory in present wars/conflicts, preparing and deploying for the wars
of the future and maintaining and developing the qualities of the
personnel serving in Space Command.

Not surprisingly, despite the vast differences between the
challenges facing the air and space arm of the State of Israel and those
facing the air force of the world’s No.1 superpower, the USA, it is
evident that the three challenges outlined above are precisely the three
primary challenges facing us these days, right here in our own region.

The day-to-day challenges facing the defense establishment
of the State of Israel do not leave any room for doubt as to the vital
nature of the efforts made day after day, hour after hour for the
purpose of ‘winning’ the present wars.

The IAF occupies a constantly-increasing share of the
solutions IDF provides for the present threats. For this reason, IAF
initiated a substantial change in its structure and in the capabilities
of its operational staff – a change that would enable it to reflect the
current operational concept of the force and its ability to execute the
employment of the primary fire element of the State of Israel vis-à-vis
the threats presented to us by Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
south.

However, opposite all of the above, we must not ignore
something that we encountered in the past, namely – the changes and
developments on our enemies’ side. Our enemies, although they may be
inferior as far as the resources available to them are concerned,
developed and are still developing methods, weapon systems and combat
elements that are based on correct lessons they had derived from their
confrontations with us and from other confrontations in our region.

The needs of the hour call for a massive investment in this
contest. Indeed, this effort currently occupies the best minds of the
IDF generally and IAF in particular.

It was enlightening to learn from the lecture of Maj. Gen.
Buck how the USA understands that the technological advantages it
currently possesses will not be sufficiently effective for the wars of
the future unless it takes the essential measures required in order to
retain its advantage. The investments currently made by the USA in space
for the purpose of retaining its advantage into the future are simply
amazing. The defense establishment of the USA realized that the
advantage is there for the taking by the side that will more effectively
combine and synchronize its military capabilities while leveraging its
military achievements in a maximum number of realms (air, land, sea,
space and cyberspace), accurately and timely.

At this point I would like to warn against the trend of
decentralizing the responsibility for space and cyberspace in the IDF.
The massive workload assigned to the IAF has led to a situation where
the fields of space and cyberspace are not assigned the appropriate
priority by the IAF, and in some areas, even on the organizational
level, they were taken away from the responsibility of IAF.

The risk involved could have a profound effect. Firstly, an
overriding principle mentioned as a primary factor that would lead to
victory in future wars – the ability to combine and synchronize our
capabilities in different fields, which we refer to as interoperability,
will be severely undermined. Beyond that, the primary advantage of IAF
is the fact that it maintains an offensive concept, which is so vital to
the attainment of victory under the conditions in which our country
operates, so these important fields must not be left in the hands of
elements who naturally concentrate on defense or on the attainment of
intelligence primarily.

The last – but by no means the least – risk is the fact
that these fields draw the best young forces being recruited into
military service. Until recently, IAF had the privilege of selecting the
”cream of the crop” of the new recruits, each and every year. Space and
the “cyber warrior” begin to “threaten” that privileged status of the
IAF, and this fact could have a far-reaching effect on the offensive
operational capabilities of the most important tactical and strategic
offensive arm of the State of Israel. It is essential that we consider
this issue, and the sooner – the better.